Case LXI: Supplied Jurisdiction

A secular priest, possessing the usual diocesan faculties ad triennium, but holding no other official position, is appointed, conjointly with other priests, to act as confessarius at a students' institute. In the full belief that his jurisdiction has not yet expired, he hears a number of confessions, and discovers only some days afterwards that he has made a mistake, for his jurisdictionexpired some weeks previously.

Question.—Were the absolutions that he gave valid?

Answer.—This is undoubtedly a case of jurisdictio suppleta in errore communi cum titulo colorato. The pupils at the institute could not possibly be aware that the priest's jurisdiction was at anend, nor could any one else know it, and consequently there was certainly an error communis, and the other condition, viz., the titulus coloratus, was also present. The bestowal of any office with which the duties of a confessarius are intimately connected, such as an appointment to be parish priest, proves a titulus to exist, and a direct and formal appointment to be a confessor must do so still more. If the appointment to any such office is null and void, owing to some secret flaw (simony), or has been subsequently revoked, by the will of a superior, there is a titulus coloratus so called to distinguish it from a titulus existimatus, which is a titulus never conferred at all by the ecclesiastical authorities, but only believed by the faithful to exist, as when a parish priest has been appointed by the state.

As the secular priest in question was directly and formally appointed confessor to the institute by the episcopal Ordinary, the Church furnished his jurisdiction, according to the titulus coloratus which the ecclesiastical authority had bestowed upon him. Many authors extend this furnishing of jurisdiction also to a titulus existimatus.

There is a further circumstance connected with those penitents who perhaps confessed only a materia libera (venial sin, or grievous sin already confessed). Since the issue of the decree "Cum ad aures" by Innocent XI on February 12, 1679, it has not been lawful for priests without approbation and jurisdiction to pronounce absolution even from venial sins, but the validity of such an absolution is still regarded as at least speculative probabilis. According to the general teaching of theologians, the Church will certainly supply any jurisdiction that may be wanting in casu jurisdictionis speculative probabilis.

The question of supplied jurisdiction in errore communi is answered by Canon 209 of the Code which states: "In common error or in a positive and probable doubt both juris and facti the Church supplies jurisdiction for the external as well as the internal forum." As the reader will notice, this new law makes it unnecessary to pay attention to the titulus coloratus or any other.